a^    5( 


•  ervi^ion     in. 


of  rtje 

Wim\}tt^\tV  of  i?ortf)  Carolina 


Wi)ii  boofe  toag  presientetr 


Educational  Publication  No.  106 


Division  of  Supervision  No.  25 


A  Study  of  the  Value  of  Supervision 
in  Consolidated  Schools 


BY 


MAYCIE  SOUTHALL 

Assistant  Supervisor  of  Rural 
Elementary  Schools 


published  by  the 

State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 

Raleigh,  N.  C. 


RALEIGH 

Edwards  &  Broughton  Company 

1925 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Letteb    of    Transmittal 5 

Preface ; ._ 6 

Abstract     7 

Tables 8 

Diagrams  .— 9 

Chapter       I.     Introduction     .- - 11 

Chapter     II.     Factors  for  Wliicli  Control  was  Attempted 13 

Chapter  III.     Effect  of   Supervision  upon  Factors  Measured 21 

1.  Improvement    in    Reading 22 

2.  Improvement   in  Spelling 24 

3.  Improvement    in   Four   Fundamentals 26 

4.  Improvement  in  Problem  Solving 28 

Chapti-:r     IV.     Summary  of  Results  and   Conclusions  31 

1.  Comparison    of    Progress   by   Subjects   ...^ 31 

2.  Comparison   of  Progress  by  Grades  -32 

3.  Summary  of   Results .,._.  34 

4.  Conclusion 34 

Appendi-X  Statistical    Data 35 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL 

October  1,  1926. 
State  Superintendent  A.  T.  Alxen, 
Raleigh,   N.    C. 

Deab  Mr.  Allen:  Is  more  efficient  and  intensive  supervision  of  our 
rural  schools  a  present  urgent  need?  Does  expert  supervision  enable  pupils 
to  do  more  and  better  work?  Is  it  really  needed  in  our  long-term  con- 
solidated rural  schools?    Is  it  worth  the  cost? 

The  foregoing  are  some  of  the  questions  now  being  asked  more  frequently 
than  before  by  progressive  county  superintendents,  county  boards  of  educa- 
tion, county  boards  of  commissioners,  as  well  as  by  the  individual  taxpayer. 
And  it  is  self  evident  that  these  vital  questions  demand  an  intelligent  answer, 
one  not  the  expression  of  horseback  opinion,  but  one  that  is  based  upon 
indisputable  facts  acquired  at  first  hand. 

Several  successful  attempts  have  been  made  to  answer  these  questions. 
Just  a  few  years  ago,  in  Brown  County,  South  Dakota,  M.  S.  Pittman 
effectively  demonstrated  the  value  of  intensive  rural  school  supervision  in 
the  one  and  two-teacher  types  of  school.  In  1923-25,  under  the  direction  of 
State  Superintendent  Burris,  the  eifectiveness  of  intensive  supervision  in 
promoting  the  learning  of  the  pupils  was  clearly  demonstrated  using  all 
types  of  schools  in  LaGrange  and  Johnson  counties  of  the  State  of  Indiana. 
Recently  a  similar  experiment  has  been  worked  out  in  the  rural  schools  of 
Oakland  and  Macomb  counties,  Michigan,  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Ernest 
Burnham.  Here  again  it  was  clearly  demonstrated  that  intensive  and  expert 
supervision  of  rural  schools  pays. 

But  notv/ithstanding  the  fact  that  the  value  of  expert  supervision  of  rural 
schools  in  promoting  the  learning  of  the  pupils,  in  small  schools  had  been 
demonstrated  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  reasonable  doubt  in  other  states,  yet 
it  seemed  advisable  to  make  a  thorough-going,  first-hand  study  of  this  sub- 
ject here  in  North  Carolina  by  using  larger  schools. 

Therefore,  in  1924-25,  Miss  Maycie  Southall,  Assistant  State  Supervisor 
of  Rural  Schools,  undertook  to  ascertain  the  value  of  expert  supervision  of 
instruction  in  our  larger  type  of  consolidated  rural  schools,  with  an  eight- 
months  school  term,  using  for  her  demonstration  Craven  and  Jones  counties. 
And  so  thoroughly  did  Miss  Southall  work  out  this  experiment  that  the  George 
Peabody  College  for  Teachers  gladly  accepted  this  piece  of  work  for  her 
Master's  Thesis. 

Believing  that  this  bulletin  will  prove  of  definite  value  to  county  superin- 
tendents, rural  school  supervisors,  rural  school  principals,  county  boards 
of  education  and  to  Departments  of  Education  in  our  various  institutions 
of  learning,  I  feel  justified  in  asking  that  you  have  it  printed  in  bulletin 
form    for    distribution. 

Yours  truly. 


a^'     ^    I  >^(?-^d^2-'^-^ 


State  Supervisor  of  Rural  Schools. 


PREFACE 

This  study  is  reported  with  the  hope  that  the  findings  may  prove  of 
service  in  promoting  more  adequate  and  effective  supervision  of  instruction, 
especially  in  the  rural  schools  of  North  Carolina.  It  was  made  upon  the 
assumption  that  supervision  is  valuable  to  the  extent  that  it  aids  pupils  to 
do  better  school  work  than  they  would  otherwise  do.  Only  such  phases 
of  pupil  progress  as  could  be  measured  objectively  are  reported  herein. 

Grateful  acknowledgment  is  made  to  the  county  superintendents,  the  prin- 
cipals and  the  teachers  of  both  the  supervised  and  the  control  groups  of 
schools  whose  hearty  cooperation  made  the  investigation  possible.  Special 
recognition  is  made  of  tlie  services  of  Miss  Margaret  Hayes,  the  supervisor 
of  the  supervised  group  of  schools,  and  the  corps  of  teachers  who  worked  so 
zealously  with  her;  also,  Mr.  Carl  S.  Adams,  Professor  of  Education,  East 
Carolina  Teachers  College,  and  the  group  of  students  who  scored  the  test 
results.  A  review  of  the  statistical  treatment  of  the  results  and  helpful 
suggestions  were  given  by  Dr.  Norman  Frost,  Professor  of  Rural  Education, 
George  Peabody   College  for  Teachers. 

To  all  who  contributed  in  any  way  to  this  investigation  the  members  of 
the  Division  of  Supervision  express  their  sincere  appreciation. 

Maycie  Southall, 
Assistant  Bupervisor  of  Rural  Elemejitary  Schools. 

October  1,  1926. 


ABSTRACT 

The  Problem.  Is  there  a  need  for,  if  so  what,  is  the  value  of  supervision 
In  the  rural  consolidated  schools  of  North  Carolina? 

Since  it  was  necessary  to  limit  the  scope  of  the  investigation,  it  was  re- 
stricted to  a  study  of  supervision  in  the  consolidated  schools  for  two  reasons: 
first,  because  of  the  present  state-wide  consolidation  program  and  second, 
because  the  need  for  supervision  in  schools  of  this  type  is  not  so  generally 
recognized  as  it  is  for  those  of  the  one,  two  and  three-teacher  type. 

Tlie  Method  Used.  The  equivalent  group  method  was  considered  best 
suited  to  an  investigation  of  this  kind.  One  group  of  the  schools  selected 
for  this  study  was  located  in  a  county  with  initial  supervision  while  the  other 
was  in  a  county  having  no  special  supervisory  officer. 

In  summing  up  the  equivalence  of  the  two  groups  at  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment,  Chapter  II,  it  was  found  that  with  the  exception  of  supervision, 
there  were  very  slight  differences  in  any  of  the  important  factors,  and  that 
such  differences  as  there  were  tended  to  counteract  each  other  in  their 
partiality,  with  a  slight  favoritism  to  the  control  group. 

The  Eesults  and  Conclusions.  The  extent  and  particulars  in  which 
supervision  gave  positive  results  are  enumerated  in  Chapter  IV.  Briefiy 
stated,  the  initial  tests  revealed  that  the  previous  achievement  of  both 
groups  of  pupils  was  below  normal  in  every  subject.  This  would  indicate 
a  need  for  supervision  of  instruction  or  some  agency  for  increasing  teaching 
efficiency. 

During  the  five  months  studied,  the  children  in  the  group  of  supervised 
schools  made  more  than  normal  progress  in  every  subject  measured,  with  an 
average  progress  of  2.26  times  as  great  as  that  of  the  control  group.  On  a 
basis  of  the  time  spent  in  these  schools,  one  supervisor  could  supervise 
thirty-six  teachers.  On  a  basis  of  the  results  obtained,  and  the  current  cost 
of  instruction,  the  services  of  a  supervisor  who  could  produce  such  improve- 
ment in  the  total  results  of  thirty-six  classrooms  would  be  valued  at 
$12,474. 

From  the  findings  of  this  limited  investigation,  it  seems  fair  to  conclude 
that  there  is  a  need  for  supervision  in  the  consolidated  schools,  and  that  even 
if  the  tool  subjects  alone  were  affected  thereby,  such  supervisory  services 
would  be  worth  their  cost. 


TABLES 

Page 
Table         I.     A  Comparison  of  the  Educational  Status  of  ttie  Two  Groups 

as   Shown   by   the  Fall   Test   Scores   .- — 14 

Tahle        II.     A  Comparison  of  the  Mental  Status  of  the  Two  Groups  as 

Shown  by  the  National  Intelligence  Test,  Scale  A  18 

Tahle      III.     Reading,  A  Comparison  of  the  Progress  of  the  Two  Groups 

Over   a  Five  Months'   Period 22 

Table       IV.     Spelling,  A  Comparison  of  the  Progress  of  the  Two  Groups 

Over   a   Five    Months'    Period   24 

Table         V.     Four  Fundamentals,  A  Comparison  of  the  Progress  of  the 

Two  Groups  over  a  Five  Months'  Period  27 

Table       VI.     Reasoning,    A    Comparison    of    the    Progress    of    the    Two 

Groups    over   a   Five   Months'   Period 29 

Table     VII.     Comparison  of  the  Progress  of  the  Two  Groups  by  Subjects, 

Based  upon  the  Combined  Scores  in  Grades  IV-VII  31 

Table,  VIII.     A  Comparison  of  the  Progress  of  the  Two  Groups  by  Grades 

Based    upon    the   Combined    Scores    in    Readiirg,   Spelling, 

Computation    and    Reasoning    32 


DIAGRAMS 


Page 

Diagram  1.  Comparing  the  Achievement  of  the  Two  Gi'oups  in  Reading 
and  Spelling  with  the  Standard  Norms  at  the  Beginning 
of    the    Experiment    16 

Diagram  2,  Comparing  the  Achievement  of  the  Two  Groups  in  Arith- 
metic with  the  Standard  Norms  at  the  Beginning  of  the 
Experiment    — 17 

Diagram  3.     Comparing   the   Native   Ability   of   the    Two   Groups   at   the 

Beginning   of   the    Experiment    19 

Diagram  4.  Illustrating  the  Improvement  in  Reading  over  a  Five 
Months'  Period,  as  Shown  by  the  Thorndike  McCall  Read- 
ing  Scale 23 

Diagram   5.     Illustrating  the  Improvement  in  Spelling  over  a  Five  Months' 

Period  as  Shown  by  the  Morrison  McCall  Spelling  Scale  ....  25 

Diagram  6.  Illustrating  the  Improvement  in  the  Fundamentals  of  Arith- 
metic over  a  Five  Months'  Period  as  Shown  by  the  Woody 
'  Arithmetic    Scale,    Series    B    28 

Diagram  7.  Illustrating  the  Improvement  in  Reasoning  in  Arithmetic 
over  a  Five  Months'  Period  as  Shown  by  the  Buckingham 
Reasoning    Scale    30 

Diagram  S.  Comparison  of  the  Improvement  of  the  Two  Groups  over  a 
Period  of  Five  Months,  Expressed  in  the  Decimal  Part  of 
a  Normal  Year's  Progress 32 

Di.\GRAM  9.  Illustrating  the  Per  cent  of  Normal  Progress  Made  by  Each 
Grade,  Based  upon  the  combined  Reading,  Spelling  and 
Arithmetic    Scores    33 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  VALUE  OF  SUPERVISION  IN 
CONSOLIDATED  SCHOOLS 


CHAPTER  I 
OTRODUCTIOF 

Purpose  of  the  Investigation 

The  purpose  of  this  study  was  to  determine  objectively  the  effect  of  county 
supervision  upon  certain  factors  of  school  efficiency.  The  data  thus  ob- 
tained is  used  to  measure  tlie  practicality  of  supervision  and  furnish  a  basis 
for  determining  the  advisability  of  joint  county  and  state  support  of  rural 
supervision  in  North  Carolina. 

A  brief  explanation  is  made  to  show  why  the  study  was  undertaken.  Sec- 
tion 51,  of  the  last  codification^  of  the  public  school  law  of  North  Carolina, 
permits  a  County  Board  of  Education  to  employ  a  supervisor  or  supervisors 
to  aid  the  county  superintendent  in  supervising  instruction:  provided,  the 
salary  of  the  same  is  stipulated  in  the  budget  and  approved  by  the  County 
Commissioners.  A  part  of  the  salary  of  the  supervisor  may  be  paid  out  of  the 
State  Public  School  Fund:  provided,  the  duties  of  the  same  are  approved  by 
the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction.  In  practice,  the  State  has 
usually  paid  one-half  of  the  rural  supervisor's  salary,  exclusive  of  traveling 
expcrses.  Even  with  this  much  help  from  the  State  the  counties  have  been 
slow  in  appropriating  their  part.  At  present,  twenty-six,  or  approximately 
one-fourth  of  the  counties,  have  a  rural  supervisor.  In  several  instances  the 
County  Board  of  Education  has  placed  their  proportional  part  of  the  super- 
visor's salary  in  the  May  budget,  but  the  appropriation  failed  to  be  approved 
by  the  County  Commissioners.  This  is  not  surprising  when  we  consider  that 
the  County  Commissioners  are  usually  business  men  wholly  out  of  touch  with 
the  work  of  the  schools.  In  a  few  of  the  mountain  and  coast  counties  they 
have  hardly  become  accustomed  to  the  need  for  a  whole-time  superintendent. 
Therefore,  it  is  quite  natural  that  they  should  question  the  advisability  of 
this  extra  expenditure  for  the  supervision  of  instruction  unless  the  county 
superintendent  and  his  Board  can  give  very  convincing  evidence  that 
supervision  is  essential  to  effective  teaching  results. 

M.  S.  Pittman^  showed  in  his  experiment  in  the  one  and  two-teacher  schools 
of  Brown  County,  South  Dakota,  that  the  "Zone  Plan"  of  supervision  was 
a  very  postive  factor  in  the  improvement  of  instruction  in  small  isolated 
schools.  The  State  Department  of  Education  in  Indiana'-  with  the  financial 
aid  of  the  General  Education  Board,  has  demonstrated  the  value  of  county- 
wide  supervision  in  LaGrange  and  Johnston  counties,  using  two  special 
supervisory  officers  in  each  county,  over  a  two-year  period.  Although  the 
results  of  both  these  investigations  were  highly  favorable  for  supervision, 
the   Director   of   Rural    Supervision    in   North    Carolina   thought    that    local 

^  The  Public  School  Law  of  North  Carolina,  Codification  of  192:^,  State  Department  of 
Public  Instruction,    Raleigh,    N.   C,   p.   17. 

^  Pittman,  M.  S. — The  Value  of  School  Supervision,  Demonstration  with  the  Zone  Plan 
in  Rural   Schools,   Baltimore,   Warwick   &  York,   1921,    pp.   94-108. 

^  "Preliminary  Report  on  Supervision  in  County  Demonstration"  Indianapolis,  Indiana. 
Department  of   Public   Instruction,   Bulletin   No.   74,    1924,   p.   37. 


12        ■  Value  of  Supervision 

evidence,  if  such  could  be  secured,  would  help  very  materially  in  convincing 
the  authorities  whose  financial  support  it  is  necessary  to  secure  in  order 
to  introduce  rural  supervision  in  the  other  seventy-four  counties.  Therefore, 
this  study  was  undertaken  to  obtain  an  objective  valuation  of  rural  school 
supervision  as  it  is  administered  in  North  Carolina,  and  to  find  whether  or 
not  it  is  worth  its  cost. 

Since  the  consolidated  school  is  fast  becoming  the  permanent  type  of 
rural  school  in  North  Carolina  and  since  one  teacher  per  grade  is  the 
minimum  for  a  standard  elementary  school,*  and  since  there  is  already  very 
convincing  evidence  of  the  value  of  supervision  in  the  small  ungraded  schools,' 
it  was  considered  best  to  restrict  the  study  to  the  following  problem:  Is 
there  a  need  for,  and  if  so  what  is  the  value  of  supervision  in  the  rural 
consolidated  and  small  town  schools? 

MetLod  of  Study  Used 

The  ejiuivalent  group  method  was  selected  for  conducting  the  experiment. 
Therefore  it  was  necessary  to  find  two  groups  of  consolidated  schools 
practically  equivalent  in  all  particulars  except  supervision.  There  were 
numerous  counties  from  which  a  group  of  unsupervised  schools  might  be 
selected,  but  only  one,  Craven  County,  in  which  the  effect  of  an  initial 
supervisory  program  could  be  investigated.  The  Craven  County  superintend- 
ent, Mr.  R.  S.  Proctor,  expressed  a  willingness  to  cooperate  in  the  experiment; 
and  the  supervisor.  Miss  Margaret  Hayes,  agreed  to  follow  the  supervisory 
program  worked  out  by  the  Division  of  Supervision  and  have  the  effect  of  her 
first  year's  work  measured.  The  Dover,  Vanceboro,  and  Ernul  Schools  of 
this  county  were  selected  as  the  Supervised  Group.  The  next  step  was  to 
find  another  group  of  schools  very  much  like  the  supervised  group,  so  that 
there  would  be  no  advantages  to  either  except  in  the  one  factor,  supervision. 
Such  a  group  was  found  in  the  Trenton,  Pollocksville,  and  Maysville  Schools 
of  Jones  County.  With  the  permission  of  the  county  superintendent  and  the 
principals  of  these  schools,  they  were  made  the  Control  Group. 

Upon  the  assumption  that  reading,  arithmetic,  and  spelling  have  a  social 
value;  and  upon  the  further  assumption  that  the  elementai-y  school  should 
give  its  pupils  a  mastery  of  the  tool  subjects,  standard  achievement  tests 
were  given  in  these  subjects.  The  educational  results,  as  shown  by  such 
tests,  are  used  as  reliable  data  from  which  to  draw  conclusions  as  to  the 
value  of  supervision.  The  progress  of  the  two  groups  of  children  was 
measured  over  the  same  five  months'  period  in  the  following  functions: 

1.  Ability  to  comprehend  what  is  read  in  a  long  time  diflSculty  test. 
(Thorndike-McCall  Reading  Scale,  Forms  I  and  III.) 

2.  Ability  to  spell  commonly  used  words.  (Morrison-McCall  Spelling  Scale. 
List;)  I  and  VIII.) 

3.  Ability  to  add,  subtract,  multiply  and  divide  integers,  common  and 
decimal  fractions,  and  denominate  numbers.  (Woody  Arithmetic  Scale, 
Series  B,  Forms  I  and  II.) 

4.  Ability  to  reason  out  solutions  of  one,  two,  three  and  four-step 
problems.      (Buckingham  Reasoning  Scale,  Forms  I  and  II.) 


^  Publications  of  the  State  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  Raleigh,  N.  C.  "Consolida- 
tion of  Schools,"  State  School  Facts,  Vol.  1,  No.  21,  January,  1925;  "Public  School  Law," 
Goditication  1923,  Article  6,  Sec.  73,  pp.  23-28;  "Elementary  School  St.andards  in  North 
Carolina,"   1924. 

^  Idem..   Pittman.   M.    S.,   p.    107. 


CHAPTER  II 
FACTORS  FOR  WHICH  CONTROL  WAS  ATTEMPTED 

Since  the  equivalent-group  method  was  to  be  used  in  making  this  study,  it 
was  necessary  that  every  precaution  be  taken  to  foresee  the  constant  irrele- 
vant factors  and  to  eliminate  or  equate  the  most  significant  ones.  This 
was  done  by  selecting  two  groups  of  schools  that  were  equivalent  or  prac- 
tically so.  :#^^ 

In  order  to  determine  the  equivalence  of  the  schools  which  formed  the 
groups,  comparisons  were  made  in  the  following  particulars: 

1.  Type  of  schools. 

2.  Length  of  school  term.     - 

3.  Teaching  skill — training,   experience,  and   tenure   of   the   teachers. 

4.  Teaching  load — enrollment  and   number  of  grades. 

5.  Educational  status  of  the  children. 

6.  Mental  status. 

7.  Other  factors:  Nationality  of  children,  supervision  by  county  superin- 
tendent, administering  the  tests,  and  scoring  the  results. 

Types  of  Scho-ols.  In  the  original  plan,  the  supervised  group  contained 
three  schools  with  four,  seven,  and  eight  elementary  teachers  respectively, 
while  the  control  group  had  three  schools  with  four,  seven  and  nine  elemen- 
tary teachers.  Near  mid-term,  an  extra  teacher  was  placed  in  the  four-teacher 
school  of  the  supervised  group.  Since  this  addition  gave  the  supervised 
group  a  decided  advantage,  the  four-teacher  schools  were  dropped  from  the 
study.  They  were  not  retested  nor  considered  in  any  part  of  this  report.  This 
left  the  experimental  grades,  four  to  seven,  with  one,  and  only  one  teacher 
per  grade  in  each  of  the  schools  of  both  groups.  Therefore,  in  this  particular 
there  was  no  advantage  to  either  group. 

The  school  buildings  of  .both  groups  were  of  brick,  and  were  modernly 
constructed.  With  the  exception  of  two  rooms  in  the  supervised  group  and 
one  in  the  control  group,  thejf  were  equipped  with  single  patented  desks.  The 
instructional  equipment  Avas  -very  much  alike  both  in  kind  and  amount. 

Length  of  Scliool  Term.  Since  all  of  the  schools  had  an  eight  months' 
school  term,  there  was  no  advantage  to  either  gToup. 

The  schools  of  the  control  group  opened  later  in  the  fall,  but  this  was 
taken  care  of  in  planning  the  testing  program.  It  was  so  planned  that  the 
first  series  of  tests  were  given  during  the  last  week  of  the  second  month 
and  the  second  series  during  the  last  week  of  the  seventh  month.  Thus,  the 
same  five  months'  period  was  measured  in  each  school  of  both  groups. 

Teaching  Skill.  The  relative  ability  or  teaching  skill  of  the  two  groups 
was  equated  on  the  basis  of  training  and  experience.  These  were  taken  as 
a  fair  measure  because  the  certification  of  teachers  in  North  Carolina  is 
based  upon  training,  and  the  minimum  salary  is  based  upon  the  certificate 
held,  with  allowance  for  each  year's  experience  through  four  years.  Tenure 
was  also  taken  into  account  in  measuring  teaching  ability.  According  to  the 
certificates  held,  the  training  of  the  supervised  group  averaged  four  years 
of  high  school  and  1.12  years  of  collegiate  training;  while  the  control  group 
averaged  1.25  years  of  collegiate  training  above  high  school.  A  slight  ad- 
vantage of  .13  of  a  collegiate  year  was  in  favor  of  the  control  group. 

The  control  group  also  had  the  advantage  in  teaching  experience.  The 
average  experience  of  the  supervised  gi'oup  was  3.4  years,  including  one  in- 


14 


Value  of  Supervision 


experienced  teacher;  while  tlie  average  experience  of  the  control  group  was 
over  four  years  and   did   not   include  any   inexperienced   teachers. 

In  tenure,  the  control  group  again  had  the  advantage.  Of  this  group, 
87.5  per  cent  had  taught  in  the  same  school  the  previous  year  while  only  62.5 
per  cent  of  the  supervised  group  were  teaching  in  the  same  school  for  the 
second  year. 

Thus  we  see  that  in  all  three,  training,  experience,  and  tenure  of  its 
teachers,  the  control  group  had  a  slight  advantage. 

Teadiing"  Load.  The  grades  selected  for  study  had  one  and  only  one 
teacher  per  grade  in  each  school.  The  average  enrollment  per  teacher  was 
30.1  in  the  supervised  group,  while  that  of  the  control  group  was  33.9.  This 
gave  the  teachers  of  the  supervised  group  an  advantage  of  3.S  less  pupils  in 
average  enrollment. 

Of  the  average  number  enrolled,  an  average  of  1.79  pupils  in  the  control 
group,  and  1.46  pupils  in  the  supervised  group  were  children  of  borderline 
intelligence.  Although  these  children  were  excluded  before  measuring  the 
progress  of  the  grades,  still  it  gave  the  teachers  of  the  supervised  group  a 
slight  advantage  in  the  daily  instruction.  Thus  we  see,  that  in  teaching 
load,  whatever  advantages  there  were  favored  the  supervised   group. 

Educational  Status  of  (croups.  The  fall  test  scores  were  used  as  a  com- 
parative measure  of  the  ability  of  the  two  groups  to  make  progress  as  based 
upon  former  scholastic  attainmeni.  Since  the  acquired  ability  or  educational 
status  of  children  is  one  of  the  two  most  important  factors  in  determining 
their  ability  to  make  progress,  it  was  most  fortunate  to  find  the  two  groups 
practically  equivalent  in  all  subjects  and  grades  tested. 

In  order  to  make  a  direct  comparison  of  the  achievement  in  the  different 
subjects,  the  various  test  scores  were  translated  into  a  common  unit  of 
measure.  The  grade  score  was  selected  for  this  purpose  because  the  school 
grade  is  probably  the  most  widely  recognized  term  for  expressing  pupil  prog- 
ress. A  brief  explanation  of  the  method  used  to  convert  test  scores  into 
grade  scores  follows.  The  grade  scores  were  obtained  by  writing  the  author's 
norms  at  the  approximate  place  on  the  McCall  Multi  Mental  Scale  and  then 
interpolating  and  extending  the  tables  graphically.  A  copy  of  the  table 
thus  computed  and  used  in  this  experiment  to  change  T  scores  or  crude 
scores  into  grade  scores,  is  listed  as  Table  IX  in  the  Appendix.  It  will  be 
noticed  that,  for  each  test  in  the  various  subjects,  standards  were  determined 
for  each  grade  and  tenth  of  a  grade.  By  referring;  the  actual  test  score  to 
this  scale  of  grade  standards,  the  grade  score  is  found  at  the  grade  and  tenth 
of  a  grade  for  which  this  score  is  the  average  achievement  of  pupils. 


TABLE  I 
A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  EDUCATIONAL  STATUS  OF  THE 
GROUPS  AS  SHOWN  BY  THE  FALL  TEST  SCORES 

Thorndike  McCall  Reading  Scale 


TWO 


T  Scores: 

Supervised  Group 

Control  Group 

*Grade  Scores: 

Supervised  Group. 

Control  Group 

'Difference  in  Grade  Units 


IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

33.6 

40.6 

43.0 

49.2 

35.0 

40.5 

45.2 

48.0 

3.5 

4.6 

5.1 

6.1 

3.7 

4.6 

5.4 

6.0 

.2c 

.0 

.3c 

.1 

IV-VII 
Mean 


.Ic 


In  Consolidated  Schools 


15 


MoEKisoN  McCall  Speilling  Scale 


Crude  Scores: 

Supervised  Group. 

Control  Group 

Grade  Scores: 

Supervised  Group, 

Control  Group 


Difference  in  Grade  Units- 


17.4 

21.3 

28.0 

31.0 

19.9 

21.9 

28.9 

35.6 

3.4 

4.1 

5.2 

5.8 

3.9 

4.2 

5.4 

6.8 

.5c 

.Ic 

.2c 

1.0c 

The  "Woody  Aeithmetic  Scale,  Series  B 


Crude  Scores: 

Super\ased  Group. 

Control  Group 

Grade  Scores: 

Supervised  Group. 

Control  Group 


Difference  in  Grade  Units. 


24.7 

35.5 

42.2 

48.2 

28.8 

34. 1' 

43.4 

46.0 

3.4 

4.2 

5.1 

5.9 

3.6 

4.1 

5.3 

5.7 

.2c 

.la 

.2c 

.2s 

The  Buckingham  Re.\soning  Scale 


Crude  Scores: 

Supervised  Group 

Control  Group 

Grade  Scores: 

Supervised  Group 

Control  Group 

Difference  in  Grade  Units. 

Mean  Grade  Score: 

Supervised  Group 

Control  Group 

Difference  in  Grade  Unite. 


36.2 

49.2 

53.6 

70.6 

36.3 

49.0 

53.2 

67.8 

3.3 

4.6 

5.1 

6.8 

3.3 

4.6 

5.0 

6.5 

.0 

.0 

.Is 

.38 

3.4 

4.4 

5.1 

6.2 

3.6 

4.4 

5.3 

6.3 

.2c 

.0 

.2c 

.le 

.Ic 


Note.  'A  grade  score  of  3.5  should  be  interpreted  to  mean  the  fifth  month  of  the  third  grade.  The 
letter  c  is  used  when  the  difference  favors  the  control  group  and  the  letter  s  when  it  favors  the  supervised 
group. 

Table  I  gives  both  the  crude  and  grade  scores  made  in  the  initial  test. 
The  difference  in  the  status  of  the  two  groups  at  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment,  is  expressed  in  grade  units  or  the  decimal  part  of  a  school  grade. 
By  reading  the  mean  differences,  we  see  that  the  control  group  had  .1  of  a 
grade  better  preparation  in  reading,  and  .5  of  a  grade  better  preparation  in 
spelling.  In  the  four  fundamentals,  the  difference  was  zero,  while  in  reason- 
ing in  arithmetic  the  supervised  group  showed  .1  of  a  grade  better  prepara- 
tion. 

"When  the  preparation  of  two  groups  is  considered  by  grades,  the  control 
group  had  an  advantage  of  from  .1  to  .2  of  a  grade  in  all  except  the  fifth 
grade  where  the  difference  was  zero.  "When  all  subjects  and  grades  were 
combined,  there  was  an  average  difference  of  .1  of  a  grade  in  favor  of  the 
control  group.  In  other  words,  in  so  far  as  attainment  in  reading,  spelling 
and  arithmetic  was  measured,  the  children  of  the  control  group  had  a 
greater  mastery  of  these  tool  subjects  and  thereby  a  slight  advantage  in 
their  preparation  for  these  and  related  subjects. 

As  both  groups  of  children  had  already  been  in  school  two  months  when 
the  fall  tests  were  given,  the  grade  norm  for  the  fourth  grade  would  be 
approximately  4.2,  the  norm  for  fifth  grade  5.2,  etc.  Diagrams  1  and  2  show 
that  neither  group  of  children  had  made  normal  achievement  in  any  subject 
or  grade.  By  comparing  the  mean  grade  scores  at  the  bottom  of  Table  I 
with  the  norms  for  the  respective  grades,  we  find  that  the  fourth  and  fifth 


16 


Value  of  Supebvision 


grades  of  the  supervised  group  were  .8  of  a  grade  below  standard,  the  sixth 
1.1  and  the  seventh  grade  1.0  grades  below  standard;  in  the  control  group,  the 
fourth  grade  was  .6,  the  fifth  grade  .8,  and  the  sixth  and  seventh  grades 
each  .9  of  a  grade  below  standard  in  achievement.     When  all  grades  were 


Or/\D£ 
•Scofl£S 

7.0 

6.0 
S.O 
4.0 
3.0 
2.0 
1.0 


<JiRADS 

1.0 
6  0 
.SO 
^.O 
3.0 
2.0 
l.'O 


/RfAD/A/G 

n      NORM. 

■      SUPR.  a/90UP 


(jfiADE'm^ 


SP^LLim 

D     NORM. 

B     SUPf^.  GROUP 

^    COA/T/rOl  GROUR 


OffAD£  ZZ 


<J/^AD£  3ZI 


N-■'.-^,■<a■ 


Cf/AOe:     Vil 


T/-(E        TWO    OROU/^J     /rj     f=lSAO/N0     Afl/D    SP^LUNO      AT     THE 
SiS/A/A'/NC     Of   T7-i£      EA /=>£/=? I t^E^/VT      S/'y/rn     THE     STAA/DAffD 


considered  together,  the  supervised  group  was  found  to  be  on  an  average  of 
.9  of  a  grade  below  standard,  and  the  control  group  .8.  This  would  indicate 
that  for  the  last  few  years  at  least,  neither  group  had  made  normal  progress, 
and  that  they  were  both  nearly  a  school  year  below  standard  in  the  subjects 
tested.  .    ■      •       . 


In  Consolidat-ed  Schools 


17 


I 


The  above  facts  lead  us  to  conclude  that  in  so  far  as  acquired  ability  wag 
concerned,  the  two  groups  were  practically  equivalent.  If  either  had  an 
advantage  in  previous  attainment  or  preparation  for  the  work  of  the  respect- 
ive grade,  it  was  the  control  group. 


Gf^Aoe 


6  0 
s.o 
4  0 
3  O 
3  0 


Grade 
Sco/?£s 

7  0 

e  o 

9:0 
3.0 
^  O 

/.O 


rC/WAM^A/TAlS 


C/?AD£lZ       Orade'Y: 


Graob'W. 


/^^ASOA/JA/6 

LI    /VO/RM. 


SUPR.  Gf?0(yP 
CO/VTROL  6/=fOO/=> 


CVI  >f  vO 

Grace  7K 


GaADe:3: 


0  FfADS  iss: 


o/^AofWr 


K  COM3 

O  RAD£     \JI/ 


0/A<iyfAM  2.       CoM^AFt/SO/V     OF  THE     AC^i£  \i  S /Vf£  NT     O/^ 

THE      TWO  GflOUPS        /A/       AR/THMf  T/C      AT    THe 

/3-re/A^/V/A'C  OF     TH£       £■  ^/^  S/Cj  / /\^s  A/T       W'TH       THE      -STANDARD 

A/O/RMS 


Mental  Status  of  Groups.  The  potential  or  native  ability  of  children  is 
such  an  important  factor  in  determining  their  future  progress  that  it  was 
considered  best  to  compare  the  intellectual  caliber  of  the  two  groups  by 
means  of  an  intelligence  test.  The  National  Intelligence  Test,  Scale  A,  Form  I, 
was  used  for  this  purpose.  As  intelligence  was  a  factor  which  could  not 
be  taken  care  of  at  the  time  of  selecting  the  groups  for  study,  except  as 
estimated  from  their  social  status,  it  was  gratifying  to  find  that  the  differ- 
ences though  not   negligible,   were   still  not   very  great. 


Valine  of  Supervision 


TABLE  II 


A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  MENTAL  STATUS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  AS 
SHOWN  BY  THE   NATIONAL  INTELLIGENCE  TEST,   SCALE   A 


Supervised  Grc 

up 

Control  Group 

Grades 

Average  Score 

Variability 

Average  Score 

Variability 

Md 

M 

Q 

Md 

M 

Q 

IV 

V 

55.5 
52.25 
86  75 
102.1 

55.8 
52.1 
86.9 
103.2 

12.5 
12.35 
15.38 
11.34 

52.9 
63.1 
82.5 
92.7 

53.8 
62.2 
85.0 
96.9 

10.5 
14.75 

VI 

10.0 

VII 

13.5 

Since  such  distributions  are  not  always  symmetrical  both  the  median 
(Md.)  and  the  mean  CM)  are  used  in  Table  II  to  give  a  more  accurate  com- 
parison of  the  central  tendencies.  For  the  same  reason,  the  quartile  deviation 
(Q)  is  used  to  show  the  concentration,  or  location  of  the  middle  half  of 
the  scores  in  each  case.  For  comparative  purposes,  the  crude  scores  given 
in  Table  II  were  converted  into  grade  scores.  The  T  and  G  Table,  calibrated 
for  the  National  Intelligence  Test  by  W.  E.  Watson,  was  used  for  this 
purpose  and  is  included  in  Table  IX  of  the  Appendix.  Diagram  3  gives 
a  graphic  comparison  of  the  mental  grade  scores  of  the  two  gi'oups. 

Table  II  and  the  accompanying  graph  show  that  the  average  mental 
status  of  the  two  groups  v.-as  very  similar  for  all  grades  except  the  seventh. 
When  crude  scores  were  considered,  the  difference  favored  the  supervised 
group  in  the  fourth,  sixth,  and  seventh  grades,  or  three  advantages  out  of 
four.  However,  some  of  the  differences  were  so  slight  that  when  the  crude 
scores  were  converted  into  grade  scores  the  differences  were  zero  except  in 
the  sixth  and  seventh  grades.  In  the  seventh  grade,  the  supervised  group 
had  a  decided  advantage  of  .4  of  a  grade  or  an  average  advantage  of  .12 
of  a  grade  when  all  grades   were   considered   together. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  control  group  had  three  out  of  four  advantages 
in  the  compactness  of  the  distribution  of  the  middle  half  of  the  scores  as 
shown  by  the  quartile  deviation  of  grades  four,  five  and  six,  or  three  ad- 
vantages out  of  four  in  the  homogeneity  of  the  grades. 

All  children  ranked  as  very  inferior  by  the  intelligence  test  were  excluded 
from  the  study  for  two  reasons:  first,  to  more  nearly  equate  the  two  groups; 
and  second,  because  it  is  generally  conceded  that  pupils  with  such  low 
native  ability  cannot  be  expected  to  make  a  normal  year's  progress  within 
*one  school  year.  This  eliminated  14.3  per  cent  of  the  control  group,  fmd 
11.7  per  cent  of  the  supervised  group.  Since  there  was  a  larger  percentage 
of  the  very  inferior  children  in  the  control  group,  this  elimination  would 
tend  to  increase  the  average  scores  and  to  make  the  mental  ability  of  those 
children  whose  progress  was  measured,  sufficiently  equivalent  for  the  purpose 
here  considered. 

Other  Factors,  There  were  no  foreign-born  children  in  either  group. 
The  parents  of  two  children  in  the  supervised  group,  and  of  one  in  the 
control  group  were  not  native  Americans,  but  in  each  case,  English  was 
spoken   in  the   homes. 


In  Consolidated  Schools 


19 


i 


Co 


3S     K   ^    ^    ^    f^    <^i 


I 

o 

u 


Q 


I 
I 


0 
K 


20  Value  of  Supekvisiojn"  . : 

The  work  of  the  two  county  superintendents  was  such  that  it  need  not 
be  considered  as  a  direct  factor  in  promoting  pupil  progress.  The  superin- 
tendent of  tlie  county  liaving  a  supervisor  did  not  spend  any  of  his  time 
supervising  instruction  in  the  experimental  group  of  schools,  and  the  school 
visits  of  the  superintendent  of  the  control  group  were  for  administrative 
purposes,   his  classroom   visits   being   inspectional  rather   than   supervisory. 

Both  groups  were  tested  by  the  same  examiner.  On  account  of  the  differ- 
ence in  the  opening  date  of  these  schools,  it  was  possible  for  the  same  persons 
to  give  all  initial  tests  during  the  last  week  of  the  second  month  of  the 
respective  school  terms,  and,  with  one  exception,  the  final  tests  during  the 
last  week  of  the  seventh  month,  thereby  measuring  a  five  months'  period  of 
work  in  each  school.  Other  duties  prevented  the  giving  of  the  spring  tests 
in  one  of  the  control  schools  until  a  week  later,  but  since  this  irregularity 
did  not  favor  the  supervised  group,  it  need  not  be  considered  here. 

Part  of  the  tests  were  scored  by  the  examiner,  and  the  other  by  members 
of  the  senior  class  of  East  Carolina  Teachers  College  in  a  course  of  tests 
and  measurements,  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Carl  S.  Adams.  The  tests 
used  were  objective  in  their  structure  and  the  students  were  instructed  to 
score  strictly  by  the  key,  regardless  of  personal  opinion.  A  sample  of  each 
set  of  papers  was  rechecked  by  one  experienced  in  scoring  standard  tests 
to  make  sure  that  the  reliability  of  the  results  was  not  affected  by  student 
scorers. 

While  all  pupils  enrolled  were  tested,  only  the  papers  of  those  taking 
both  the  initial  and  the  final  tests  were  included  for  study.  The  check  was 
made  by  subjects,  but  the  average  deduction  was  about  one-third  of  the 
cases  in  each  group.  After  these  and  the  borderline  cases  had  been  elimi- 
nated, there  were  between  160  and  170  pupils  in  each  group  for  all  sub- 
jects except  Reasoning.  Classification  was  so  poor  that  the  overlapping  of 
the  divisions  of  the  Reasoning  scale  was  not  sufficient  to  prevent  quite 
a  number  from  not  scoring  on  the  first  test  and  reduced  the  number  to 
147  in  one  group  and  14S  in  the  other. 

In  summing  up  the  equivalence  of  the  two  groups  selected  for  this  study, 
we  find  that  the  differences  are  not  very  great,  and  that,  if  an  advantage 
accrues  to  either  it  is  to  the  control  group'.  In  comparing  the  relative  ability 
of  the  teachers,  the  control  group  had  the  advantage  of  having  teachers 
slightly  superior  in  training,  experience  and  tenure.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  supervised  group  had  the  advantage  in  average  enrollment  per  teacher, 
and  in  the  number  of  inferior  children.  When  comparing  the  status  of 
the  children  at  the  beginning  of  the  study,  eight  out  of  thirteen  of  the 
educational  differences  favored  the  control  group,  with  an  average  differ- 
ence of  .1  of  a  grade  in  its  favor.  In  mental  status,  the  supervised  group 
was  favored  in  three  out  of  four  of  the  differences  in  crude  scores,  with  an 
average  difference  of  .12  of  a  grade;  while  the  control  group  had  three  out 
of  four  advantages  in  the  compactness  of  the  distribution  of  the  scores.  Tn 
other  factors  compared,  there  were  no  significant  differences. 

From  the  comparisons  made  in  this  chapter,  it  would  seem  that  for  all 
practical  purposes  the  supervised  and  control  groups  were  equivalent.  In 
the  important  factors  there  were  very  slight  differences  and  such  as  there 
were,  tended  to  counteract  each  other  in  their  favoritism  to  the  two  groups. 
Therefore,  this  study  proposes  to  credit  the  supervision  of  instruction  with 
the  difl'erences  in  the  amount  of  improvement  made  by  the  two  groups  in 
such  abilities  as  were  measured. 


CHAPTER  III 
EFFECT  OF  SUPERTISIOX  UPO    FACTORS  MEASURED 

Since  supervision  is  to  be  considered  valuable  to  the  extent  that  it  aids 
children  to  do  better  school  work,  space  is  taken  here  to  give  in  a  general  way 
the  activities  of  the  supervisor,  or  what  was  done  to  promote  the  progress 
of  the  pupils  in  the  supervised  group  that  was  not  done  in  the  control  group. 

The  following  are  the  general  means  and  devices  used: 

A.  A  Basis  Was  Laid  for  the  Improvement  of  Instruction 

1.  By  using  the    preliminary   test    results    together    with    the   teachers' 

marks  to   determine  the   educational   and  mental   status   of   classes 
and  individuals. 

2.  By  grouping  the  children  for  teaching  purposes  by  subjects  accord- 

ing to  past  achievements  and  ability  to  make  progress,  as  follows: 

a.  Those  capable  of  doing  extra  work 

b.  Those  capable  of  doing  the  regular  work  of  the  grade 

c.  Those  needing  special  drill  and  individual  attention 

3.  By  selecting  subject  matter  appropriate  to  the  needs  of  each  group. 

4.  By    using   formal    and    informal    diagnostic    tests    to    determine    the 

types  of  error  and  causes  of  defects  and  shortcomings. 

5.  By    working    out    mimeographed    copies    of    suggestive    devices    for 

remedying  the  weaknesses  and   correcting  the   errors   found   to   be 
most  prevalent. 

6.  By  checking  restilts  and  thereby  stimulating  pupils  and  teachers  to 

greater   activity  and  effort. 

B.  Teachers  Were  Aided  in__Connnecting  the  Details  of  Classroom  Instruc- 

tion with  the  Aims  and  Principles  of  Edtication 

1.  By  observing  them  teach  a  lesson  in  its  entirety,  following  it  with 

a  personal  conference  and   references  to  instructional   material   on 
the  subject. 

2.  By    demonstrating    sound    methods    of    teaching    and    proper    use    of 

materials. 

3.  By  arranging  for,  and  preparing  teachers  to  observe  expert  teaching 

followed   by   discussion. 

4.  Through   group    and   cotmty-wide    study    conferences. 

5.  By  directing  the  attention  of  the  teachers   to   up-to-date  articles  on 

the  methods  that  experiment  has  shown  to  be  best. 

6.  Through  direct  training  in  diagnosing  pupil  deficiencies  and  planning 

the   teaching   procedure    that    experienced    and    educational    experi- 
ments have  shown  to  be  suitable  for  such  cases. 

As  previously  stated,  this  is  a  study  of  the  effect  of  supervision  tipon  the 
improvement  of  pupils  in  ability  to  read,  to  spell,  to  add,  subtract,  multiply, 
and  divide,  and  to  solve  problems  in  arithmetic.  Because  of  the  limitations 
of  funds  and  time  available  for  the  purpose,  tests  were  made  in  only  these 
traditional  subjects,  using  grades  four  to  seven  inclusive  in  all  subjects 
measured.  In  measuring  the  improvement  in  any  subject  only  the  scores 
of  those  taking  the  intelligence  test  and  both  series  of  the  achievement  test 
were  included.  It  will  be  recalled  that  all  pupils  whom  the  intelligence 
test  ranked  as  very  inferior  were  excluded  from  the  study.  The  reasons 
for,  and  the  effect  of  excluding  these  were  discussed  in  Chapter  II. 


22 


Valuf:  of  Supervision 


Section   I — Imprtn  emeiit   in   Beading 

The  function  of  this  section  is  to  answer  the  question:  What  was  the  effect 
of  supervision  upon  the  efficiency  of  the  teaching  of  reading? 

The  Thorndike  McCall  Reading  Scale,  which  is  a  long-time  difficulty  test, 
was  selected  for  use.  This  is  an  eight-page  booklet  suitable  for  grades  three 
through  twelve.  It  measures  the  pupils'  ability  to  understand  paragraphs 
of  increasing  difficulty  and  to  word  readable  answers  to  questions  concern- 
ing them.  Form  1  of  the  scale  Avas  given  to  both  groups  during  the  last  week 
of  the  second  month  of  the  respective  school  terms,  and  Form  3  during  the 
last  week  of  the  seventh  month.  The  principles  for  administering  and 
scoring  tests  were  carefully  applied  at  each  testing. 

In  Table  III  the  average  results  of  the  fall  and  spring  testing  programs 
are  given  both  in  T  scores  and  in  Grade  Scores.  The  improvement  of  each 
group  is  expressed   in  grade  units,  or  the   decimal  part  of  a   school  grade 

TABLE  III 

READING.  A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS 
OVER  A  PERIOD  OF  FIVE  MONTHS. 


Groups  and  Grades  . 

T   Scores 

Grade  Scores 

Imp.  in 

Fall 

Spring 

Fall 

Spring 

GradeUnits 

Supervised  Group: 
Grade  IV 

33.59 
40.58 
42.95 
49.22 

38.95 
43.59 
46.00 
52.14 

3.5 
4.6 
5.1 
6.1 

4.3 
5.2 
5.6 
6.7 

8 

Grade  V.. 

.6 

Grade  A^I 

.5 

Grade  VII 

.6 

.63 

Control  Group: 

Grade  IV 

35.06 
40.53 
45.20 
48  00 

38.77 
41.23 
45.73 
48.50 

3.7 
4.6 
5.4 
6.0 

4.3 

4.7 
5.6 
6.1 

.6 

Grade  V 

.1 

Grade  VI 

.2 

Grade  VII 

.1 

Total  Av.  Improvement 

i 

■25 

Progress  of  the  supervised  group  exceeded  the  progress  of  the  Control  group,  152  per  cent.     (Appen- 
dix, Table  I.) 


completed  in  five  mouths.  As  a  summary  of  the  comparison,  the  difference 
in  the  Improvement  of  the  two  groups  is  expressed  as  the  per  cent  by 
which  the  progress  of  one  group  exceeds  the  progress  of  the  other.  The  data 
given  in  Table  I  showed  that  in  all  grades,  the  typical  readiYig  ability  of 
the  two  groups  was  very  similar  in  the  fall,  with  a  slight  total  advantage 
to  the  control  group.  This  would  indicate  that  the  previous  reading  instruc- 
tion had  been  a  little  superior  in  the  control  group.  Table  III  and  the 
accompanying  graph  shows  that,  in  the  five  months'  period  studied,  the 
supervised  group  made  more  progress  than  the  control  group  in  every 
grade.     Furthermore,  the  supervised  group  made  normal  progress  or  above 


In  Consolidated  Schools 


23 


in  every  grade  but  the  sixth,  while  the  control  group  did  not  make  normal 
progress  in  any  grade  but.  the  fourth.  When  the  total  average  reading 
progress  for  the  two  groups  was  compared,  Table  VII,  it  was  found   that 


I 

51^ 


I 


h 

...  "^i 


I? 


the  supervised  group  had  made  2.52  times  as  much  progress  as  the  control 
group.  That  is,  the  average  progress  of  the  supervised  group  measured  in 
terms  of  the  average  progress  of  the  control  group  was  252  per  cent.  Upon 
first  examination,  it  would  seem  that  the  supervised  group  had  made  splendid 


24 


Value  of  Supeevisiox 


progress,  but.  when  measured  in  terms  of  a  normal  year's  work,  it  is  found 
that  both  groups  made  less  proportional  progress  in  reading  than  in  any 
other  subject.      (See  Table  VII,  Chapter  IV.) 

The  lack  of  reading  achievement  in  the  upper  grades  is  often  accounted 
for  by  stating  that  teachers  of  these  grades  have  permitted  reading  to  be- 
come a  secondary  matter.  In  their  effort  to  teach  the  informational  sub- 
jects such  as  history,  geography,  etc.,  they  pay  little  attention  to  increasing 
the  pupil's  ability  to  use  the  tools  by  which  such  information  can  be  ac- 
ciuired.  This  explanation,  together  with  the  emphasis  placed  upon  oral 
reading  and  the  poor  silent  reading  methods,  will  no  doubt  account  in 
a  large  measure  for  the  low  reading  ability  of  both  groups  in  the  first 
test.  However,  because  of  its  importance  in  mastering  other  subjects,  read- 
ing was  given  very  special  attention  in  the  supervised  group.  Special  at- 
tention does  not  mean  increased  time  allotment,  but  refers  to  changes  in 
emphasis,  methods,  and  materials.  Therefore,  the  test  results  would  indicate 
that  for  this  group  of  teachers,  at  least,  the  teaching  of  reading  was  the 
most  difficult  subject  measured. 

It  is  concluded  that  the  supervision  of  instruction  was  a  positive  factor  in 
promoting  more  efficient  teaching  of  reading.  First,  because,  although 
neither  group  had  made  normal  reading  progress  in  the  past,  the  super- 
vised group  made  more  than  normal  progress  during  the  period  measured, 
and  second,  because  the  progress  of  the  supervised  gi'oup  exceeded  the  prog- 
ress of  the  control  group  by  152  per  cent. 


Section  2 — Improvement  in   Spelling 

TABLE   IV 

SPELLING,  A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS 
OVER  A  FIVE  MONTHS'  PERIOD 


Groups  and  Grades 

i 
Crude  Scores 

Grade  Scores 

Imp.  in 

Fall        I      Spring      1 

Fall 

Spring 

GradeUnits 

Supervised  Group: 

Grade  IV        ..       .._     ...          

17.35 

21.29 
27.99 
31.04 

20.04 

27.49 
41.46 
38.. 39 

3.4 
4.1 
5.2 
5.8 

3.9 
5.1 
5.9 
7.3 

Grade  V 

1  0 

Grade  YI     -     -       _ 

7 

Grade  VII     

1  5 

.93 

Control  Group: 

Grade  IV 

19.88 
21.92 
28.86 

21.76 
23.16 
30.26 

3.9 
4.2 
5.4 

6.8 

4.2 
4.3 
5.6 
7.5 

.3 

:     Grade  V 

.1 

Grade  VI 

.2 

Grade  VII _ 

35,62  i            39,23 

.7 

1 

i              -         i 

1                   33 

Progress  of  the  supervised  group  exceeded  the  progress  of  the  control  group  182  per  cent.     (Appen- 
dix, Table  II.) 


Ix    CO'SOLIDAl'ED   SCHOOLS  25 

The  function  of  this  section  is  to  answer  the  question:  Wliat  was  the 
effect  of  supervision  upon  the  efficiency  of  the  teaching  of  spelling? 

For  this  purpose,  two  lists  of  words  were  selected  from  the  Morrison- 
McCall  Spelling  Scale,  which  is  a  booklet  containing  eight  spelling  lists  of 


^ 

g 
S 

^ 


K 


QO    CO   ^  O 


(5 

'u 

i"? 

^  ^ 

Ui 

r''^ 

l^ 

^ 

1 

^ 

^   V 

c^  tQ 

5^ 

^1 

V-) 

^    0 

'^   ,^ 

^^ 

^ 

^  5 

5^ 

•J     "^     -J 

^ 

"     .^      ^ 

k      0 

i 

i^^ 

'^  >  "y 

^   k.   qJ 

1^ 

Q  ^  ^ 

o 

fifty  words  each.  The  lists  were  so  chosen  from  the  Ayres  Scale  of  1,000 
words  as  to  be  of  uniform  difficulty,  and  composed  of  words  progressively 
ranging  from  easy  to  difficult.  The  First  List  of  this  scale  was  used  for  the 
fall   test,  and   the  Eighth  List   for   the   spring   test.     To   prevent   any   com- 


26  Value  of  Supervision 

munication  of  words,  all  grades  were  tested  in  spelling  between  the  same 
intermission  periods  and  in  the  order  of  their  rank.  To  prevent  any  mis- 
understanding or  confusion  of  words,  each  was  pronounced,  used  in  a 
sentence,  and  pronounced  the  second  time.  For  example,  "company,  We  are 
expecting  company  for  dinner,  company." 

The  average  number  of  words  spelled  correctly  is  given  by  grades  for 
the  test  given  at  the  end  of  the  second  month,  and  for  the  one  five  mouths 
later.  As  in  reading,  the  spelling  improvement  is  expressed  in  grade  units 
or  the  decimal  part  of  a  school  grade  completed  in  five  months.  The  sum- 
mary is  given  in  terms  of  the  per  cent  by  which  the  progress  of  one  group 
exceeds  the  progress  of  the  other. 

It  will  be  observed  from  the  above  table  and  the  accompanying  graph 
that  in  the  fall  test,  the  typical  spelling  performance  of  the  pupils  in  the 
control  group  was  better  in  every  grade  than  the  spelling  in  the  supervised 
group,  but  that  in  every  grade  the  average  improvement  was  greater  in  the 
supervised  group.  When  compared  with  the  progress  to  be  expected  the 
supervised  group  made  normal  progress  or  above  in  every  grade  except 
the  fourth  while  the  control  group  made  normal  progress  only  in  the  seventh 
grade.  The  average  progress  of  the  supervised  group  exceeded  the  average 
progress  of  the  control  group  by  182  per  cent.  In  other  terms,  the  children 
where  there  was  supervision  of  instruction,  made  2.82  times  as  much  progress 
in  spelling  as  did  those  of  the  control  group.  On  the  basis  of  the  above 
statements,  it  is  concluded  that  the  supervision  of  the  instruction  very 
materiallj'  affected  the  efficiency  of  the  teaching  of  spelling. 

Section  3 — Improvement  in  tlie  Four  Fundamentals 

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  answer  the  question:  What  was  the 
effect  of  supervision  upon  the  efficiency  of  the  teaching  of  the  fundamental 
operations  in  arithmetic? 

The  test  used  to  measure  tlie  extent  to  which  the  children  of  the  two  groups 
had  become  automatic  in  the  fundamental  processes  was  the  Woody  Arith- 
metic Scale,  Series  B.  This  is  a  four-page  booklet  testing  their  ability  to 
add,  subtract,  multiply  and  divide  integers,  common  and  decimal  fractions, 
and  denominate  numbers.  The  problems  on  each  page  range  in  difficulty 
from  those  so  simple  that  any  third  grade  can  solve  them,  up  to  others 
too  difficult  for  the  average  eighth  grade  to  solve.  It  presents  nineteen 
different  types  of  difficulty  in  addition,  fifteen  in  subtraction,  twenty  in 
multiplication,  and  fifteen  in  division.  Thus  by  this  series  of  problems, 
the  pupil  is  tested  more  or  less  over  the  entire  range  of  fundamental 
processes. 

Since  accurate  computation  in  arithmetic  in  the  upper  grades  demands  a 
mastery  of  all  four  of  the  fundamentals,  they  will  be  considered  together 
rather  than  separately  in  this  comparison.    Table  V  gives  the  average  number 


In  Consolidated  Schools 


27 


of  problems  worked  correctly  by  each  gi-ade,  out  of  a  possible  sixty-nine,  in 
the  fall  and  in  the  spring.  It  also  gives  the  grade  scores  with  the  im- 
provement expressed  in  grade  units. 


TABLE   V 

.FOUR  FUNDAMENTALS,  A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE 
TWO   GROUPS    OVER   A   FIVE   MONTHS'    PERIOD 


Groups  and  Grades 

Crude  Scores 

Grade  Scores 

Imp.  in 

Fall 

Spring 

Fall 

Spring 

GradeUnits 

Supervised  Group: 

Grade  IV 

24.71 
35.49 
42.19 
48.21 

33.75 
41.49 
52.54 
55.41 

3.4 
4.2 
5.1 

5.9 

4.1 
5.0 
6.4 
7.0 

.7 
.8 

1.3 

Grade  VII 

1.1 

98 

Control  Group: 
Grade  IV 

28.83 
34.10 
43.36 
46.00 

34.39 
35.18 
46.97 
49.00 

3.6 
4.1 
5.3 
5.7 

4.1 
4.2 
5.8 
6.0 

Grade  V                               .         .       ._ 

.1 

Grade  VI                            

.5 

Grade  VII                   -          .-     - 

.3 

1 

.37 

Progress  of  the  supervised  group  exceeded  the  progress  of  the  control  group  165  per  cent.  (Appen- 
dix, Table  III.) 

Table  V  and  the  accompanying  graph  show  that  at  the  first  testing,  the 
control  group  had  better  averages  in  the  fourth  and  sixth  grades  while 
the  supervised  group  had  the  better  scores  in  the  fifth  and  seventh  grades. 
In  the  test  given  five  months  later,  the  scores  for  the  supervised  group 
were  greater  in  all  grades  except  the  fourth.  In  every  case  the  supervised 
group  made  greater  progress  in  the  fundamental  operations  than  the 
control  group.  The  supervised  group  made  an  average  total  improvement  pf 
.98  of  a  grade  as  against  .37  for  the  control  group.  If  the  total  progress  of 
the  supervised  group  is  expressed  in  terms  of  the  progress  of  the  control 
group,  it  is  265  per  cent  or,  in  other  terms,  the  children  where  the  instruction 
was  supervised  gained  2.6-"  times  as  much  skill  in  rapid  and  accurate  com- 
putations as  did  those  in  the  unsupervised  group.  From  the  above  data  it 
seems  fair  to  conclude  that  supervision  was  a  positive  factor  in  influencing 
the  efficiency  of  the  teaching  of  the  fundamental  operations  in  arithmetic. 


28; 


Value  of  Supervision 


ts 

M 

f° 

■<i~ 

C> 

><0 

<\i 

UQ 

^ 

<o 

vo 

<\J 

Co 

■-0 

s 

'^ 

•^ 

^ 

^t- 

n 

tn 

(^ 

t\l 

rvi 

k 

-  M 

:2  S 

o 

^ 

^    >^    o 


Section  4 — Improvement  in  Reasoning  or  Problem  Solving 

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  answer  the  question,  What  was  the 
effect  of  supervision  upon  the  teaching  of  reasoning,  or  problem  solving 
in  arithmetic? 

Helping  pupils  acquire  the  ability  to  reason  independently  is  usually  con- 
sidered an  important  and  rather  difficult  part  of  the  teaching  of  arithmetic. 
In  order  to  show  some  direct  comparison  of  the  improvement  in  the  problem- 
solving  ability  of  the  two  groups,  the  Buckingham  Scale  for  Problems  in 
Arithmetic  was  given.  Although  it  is  broken  up  into  three  divisions,  they 
are  so  arranged  that  all  pupils  of  grades  three  through  eight  may  be 
measured  on  the  same  scale.  For  example,  the  last  page  of  problems  in 
Division  I  is  the  same  as  the  first  page  in  Division  II,  and  the  last  page  in 


In  Co?rsoLii>ATED  Schools 


29 


Division  II  is  the  same  as  the  first  page  in  Division  III.  Although  this 
overlapping  allows  for  considerable  range  of  ability  within  the  grades,  the 
range  within  the  grades  tested  was  greater  than  the  tests  allowed,  causing 
several  to  fail  to  score  on  the  fall  test.  These  eliminations  left  the  number 
tested  in  reasoning  smaller  than  in  any  other   subject. 

TABLE  VI 

REASONING,   A   COMPARISON   OF   THE    PROGRESS   OF   THE    TWO 
GROUPS  OVER  A  FIVE  MONTHS'  PERIOD 


Groups  and  Grades 

Crude  Scores 

Grade  Scores 

Imp.  in 

FaU 

Spring 

Fall 

Spring 

GradeUnits 

Supervised  Group: 

Grade  IV 

36.24 
49.22 
53.63 
70.63 

43.86 
60.42 
62.11 
78.36 

3.3 
4.6 
5.1 

6.8 

4.2 
5.7 
5.9 
7.6 

.9 

Grade  V 

1.1 

Grade  VI 

.8 

Grade  VII 

.8 

.90 

Control  Group: 
Grade  IV 

36.26 
49.00 
53.19 
67.75 

42.46 
53.17 
61.19 
72.42 

3.3 

4.6 
5.0 
6.5 

4.0 
5.0 
5.8 
6.9 

7 

Grade  V     .. 

.4 

Grade  VI     .          .       . 

.8 

Grade  VII , 

.4 

Total  Av.  Improvement.. 

.58 

Progress  of  the  supervised  group  exceeded  progress  of  the  control  group  55  per  cent.     (Appendix 
Table  IV.) 


Table  VI  gives  by  grades  the  average  fall  scores,  spring  scores  and  average 
improvement  in  terms  of  grade  units  for  each  group.  From  this  table  and 
Diagram  7  it  is  obvious  that  the  supervised  group  made  more  progress  than 
the  control  group  in  every  grade  except  the  sixth,  where  the  difference  was 
zero.  It  should  not  be  overlooked,  however,  that  the  fourth  and  sixth 
grades  of  the  control  group  made  more  than  normal  progress,  and  that  as 
a  whole,  the  control  group  made  greater  progress  in  problem  solving  than 
any  other  subject  measured.  Nevertheless,  the  children  of  the  supervised 
group  made  55  per  cent  more  improvement  in  problem  solving  than  the 
control   group. 

It  seems  from  the  facts  presented  in  the  summary  of  results  by  subjects, 
Table  VII,  that  the  teachers  of  the  supervised  group  in  general  achieved 
better  results  in  teaching  the  fundamental  operations  in  arithmetic  than 
they  did  in  problem  solving.  The  latter  is  more  difficult  to  teach,  more 
difficult  to  find  satisfactory  drill  exercises  for,  and  probably  even  more  de- 
pendent  upon  the  native  capacity  of  pupils. 


30 


Value  of  Supebvisioiv 


Since  in  all  grades  except  the  seventh  there  was  less  than  one  unit  of 
difference  in  the  fall  test,  and  since  in  every  grade  there  was  greater  im- 
provement in  the  supervised  than  in  the  control  group,  and  since  the  super- 
vised group  made  an  average  improvement  of  one  and  one-half  times  as 
much  as  the  control  group,  it  is  concluded  that  the  supervision  of  instruction 
did  affect  the  efficiency  of  the  teaching  of  reasoning  or  problem  solving. 


I 


N 


H 


N 


\-  IN 


«    Q 


'I 


c^  ^ 


CHAPTER  IV 
SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

Comparison  of  Progress  by   Subjects 

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  show  which  group  of  schools  made  the 
greater  progress  in  each  suhject  and  in  which  subjects  the  greatest  progress 
was  made  during  the  five  months'  period  of  the  experiment. 

Progress  is  expressed  in  the  decimal  part  of  a  normal  year's  work  with 
tables  and  graphs  used  to  illustrate  the  comparison.  Since  all  of  the  schools 
in  both  groups  had  an  eight  months'  term,  each  group  would  be  expected  to 
do  five-eights  or  .62 1/^  of  the  normal  work  of  a  school  grade.  In  Tables  I- 
IV  of  the  Appendix  will  be  found  the  average  or  mean  results  of  each  subject 
by  grades.  Table  VII  of  this  chapter  gives  the  combined  results  for  all 
grades,  which  is  the  mean  of  the  separate  grade  averages. 

TABLE  VII 
A   COMPARISON   OF  THE   PROGRESS   OP  THE   TWO   GROUPS   BY   SUB- 
JECTS, BASED  UPON  THE  COMBINED  SCORES  OP  GRADES  IV-VII 


Subjects 

Der-imal  Part  of  the   Normal  Work   of   a 
School  Grade  Completed  in  Five  Months  or 
.62)2  of  a  School  Year. 

Per  cent  by  which  the  Prog- 
ress of  the   .Supervised    group 
Exceeded  the  Progress  of  the 

Supervised 

Control 

Control. 

.63 
.93 
.98 
.90 

.25 
.33 
.37 
.58 

152% 

Spelli  ng 

182% 

Arith.—  Fund 

Arith. — Reas 

165% 
55% 

Average . 

.86 

.38 

126% 

The  data  obtained  from  this  study  shows  that: 

1.  When  the  results  were  considered  for  all  the  grades,  the  supervised  group 
made  more  than  normal  progress  in  every  subject  measured,  while  the  con- 
trol group  made  less  than  normal  progress  in  all  subjects.  (A  comparison 
of  the  fall  scores  with  the  standard  grade  norm  showed  that  no  grade  of 
either  group  was  standard  in  any  subject.  This  would  indicate  that  neither 
group  had  made  normal  progress  in  the  last  few  years  at  least.) 

2.  The  progress  of  the  supervised  group  more  than  doubled  the  progress 
of  the  control  group  in  reading,  spelling,  and  the  four  fundamentals. 

3.  Both  groups  made  less  progress  in  reading  than  in  any  other  subject. 
In  the  supervised  group  the  greatest  progress  was  in  fundamental  processes 
in  arithmetic,  while  in  the  control  group  the  greatest  progress  was  in  reason- 
ing or  problem  solving  in  arithmetic. 

4.  Out  of  sixteen  differences  before  the  results  for  all  grades  were  combined, 
fifteen  favored  the  supervised  group. 

5.  The  supervised  group  made  normal  progress  or  above  in  all  subjects 
except  sixth  grade  reading  and  fourth  grade  spelling.  The  control  group 
made  less  than  normal  progress  in  all  subjects  except  fourth  grade  reading, 
seventh  grade  spelling,  fourth  and  sixth  grade  reasoning. 

6.  In  the  sixteen  comparisons  of  achievement,  the  supervised  group  made 
normal  progress  or  above  fourteen  times;  the  control  group  only  four  times. 


32 


Value   of    Supervision 


R£AD/h/6 


SPELUNC 


APITHMETIC       .98 
FUNDAMENT/^LS  :5T 


.62  s. 

A  Rl  THME  TJC       3  O 
RFASON/NC        .^O    K////// 


NOffMAL     PROGR£SS 
SUPR-    GROUP 
CONTROL     GROUP 


D//\6ffA/^  8-       Coy^PAfi>/SO/V       OF       IMPROVE: /^ENT      iN 
TH£       rwo       CffOUfS-        OVER       A      rivs       MO/VTRS' 
Pe^fOO  £XfP?CS3£D         IN     TH^        DECIMAL       /=>ART 

OF-      A         rvO/^A/iAL        YEARS        PROGRESS. 


Comparison  of  Progress  by  Grades 

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  show  which  group  of  schools  made  the 
greater  progress  in  each  grade  and  to  show  in  which  grades  the  greatest 
progress  was  made.  The  comparisons  are  made  in  terms  of  the  decimal 
part  of  a  normal  year's  work,  the  per  cent  of  normal  progress  made  and  the 
per  cent  by  which  the  progress  of  one  group  exceeded  the  progress  of  the 
other. 

TABLE  VIII 

A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  BY  GRADES, 

BASED  UPON  THE  COMBINED  SCORES  IN  READING, 

SPELLING,  COMPUTATION  AND  REASONING 


Grades 

Decimal  Part  of  the  Normal  Work  of  a 
School  Grade  Completed  in  Five  Months  or 
.6232   of   the   School   Term. 

Per  cent  by  which   the    Prog- 
ress  of   the   .Supervised  group 
Exceeded  the   Progre.ss   of   the 

Supervised 

Control 

Control 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

.73 

.88 

.83 

1.00 

.53 
.18 
.43 
.38 

38% 
389% 

93% 
163% 

Average 

.86 

.38 

126% 

In    CONSOLIDAl-ED   SCHOOLS  33 

A  comparison  of  the  progress  made  by  grades  shows  that: 

1.  In  62^  per  cent  of  the  school  term,  the  supervised  group  accomplis.hed 
86  per  cent  of  a  normal  year's  work;  the  control  group  38  per  cent. 

2.  No  grade  of  the  control  group  made  normal  progress  when  all  subjects 
were  combined,  while  no  grade  of  the  supervised  group  made  less  than 
normal  progress. 

3.  Of  the  fourteen  comparisons  in  which  the  supervised  group  made  normal 
progress,  four  were  in  seventh  grade,  four  in  the  fifth,  three  in  the  fourth, 


P£P 

GfiADE 

CENT 

HZ 

8'5 

S- 

Z9 

•sar 

69 

szr 

Gf 

m-\m 

61 

'NOR,  PROGRESS JOO 

PER 

GRAD£ 

CENT 

ET 

//7 

JZ 

141 

YL 

t35 

m 

/60 

JF-EZT 

J38 

CONTROL     GROUP 


SUPERVISED    GROUP 


NOR.  PROGRESS /OO 


Z^ 


SO 


7j5'       /OO       /Q.S      /SO      //^ 


0/Aefi>flM9'    /LLusTRArtf>/c     THB    pea    C£NT   or 

NOffMAL       PROG/=>ESS  UAD£     BY     EPiCH       GRADlz, 

BASED      UPON      THE      COMBINED       PPeAOlNG. 
SP^LU/^C,      AND        ARITHMETIC       SEPIBS 

and  three  i-n  the  sixth.  Of  the  four  times  that  the  control  group  made 
normal  progress  or  above,  two  were  in  the  fourth  grade,  one  in  the  sixth, 
and  one  in  the  seventh.     (See  Tables  I-IV  of  the  Appendix.) 

4.  In  the  supervised  group,  the  greatest  progress  was  made  by  the  seventh 
grade  with  rather  uniform  progress  in  the  other  three;  in  the  control  group, 
the  greatest  progress  was  made  by  the  fourth  grade  and  the  least  progress  by 
the  fifth. 

5.  In  every  grade  tested,  the  supervised  group  made  the  greater  progress. 
The  greatest  difference,  389  per  cent,  was  in  the  fifth  grades  and  the  least 
difference.  38   per  cent,  was  in  the  fourth   grades. 


34  Value  of  Supervision 

Slim  mar  J   of  Results 

This  study  shows  that: 

1.  On  an  average  the  children  of  the  supervised  group  in  the  five  months 
period,  advanced  126  per  cent  faster  than  the  cliiklren  in  the  control  group, 
or  2.26  times  as  fast. 

2.  In  100  days,  the  children  of  the  supervised  group  on  the  basis  of  the 
subjects  measured  received  the  average  equivalent  of  138  days  of  instruc- 
tion; the  control  group  the  equivalent  of  61  days. 

3.  On  a  basis  of  the  same  difference  for  the  entire  term  of  160  days,  the 
children   of   the   supervised    group   would  accomplish   the   equivalent   of   1.4  , 
grades   (221   days)    while  the  control  group  would  accomplish  .6  of  a  grade 
(98  days). 

4.  Within  the  time  at  the  disposal  of  all  rural  children  in  North  Carolina, 
7-14  years,  adequate  supervision  of  instruction  would  help  the  children 
obtain  an  education  2.26  times  as  good  as  the  one  now  being  received. 

5.  If  the  compulsory  attendance  law  required  the  completion  of  standard 
elementary  grade  work,  at  the  rate  of  progress  of  the  supervised  group  it 
could  be  completed  in  5.7  years,  or  a  saving  of  2.3  years  for  work  or  higher 
education  and  a  proportional  saving  in  the  cost  of  instruction  to  the 
taxpayer. 

6.  Put  in  other  terms,  one  county  for  an  additional  expenditure  of  $350 
for  thirty-five  days  of  supervision,  purchased  the  equivalent  of  seventy-seven 
days  of  instruction.  At  the  current  daily  cost  of  instruction  in  the  control 
group  this  would  have  a  monetary  value  of  $2,772. 

7.  Upon  the  same  time  allotment^  one  supervisor  could  supervise  thirty- 
six  teachers'.  The  services  of  one  supervisor  who  could  produce  such  results 
in  the  total  results  of  thirty-six  classrooms  would  be  valued  at  $12,474. 

Conclusion 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  mastery  of  the  fundamental  tools  of  learn- 
ing is  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  elementary  school.  The  results  of  this 
study  indicate  that  the  supervision  of  instruction  was  certainly  a  positive 
factor  in  accomplishing  this  objective.  Further  investigation  is  needed  to 
determine  the  degree  to  which  this  is  true  of  other  important  but  less  tan- 
gible aims  of  elementary  education.  However,  within  the  limits  of  this  ex- 
periment, it  seems  fair  to  conclude  that  supervision  is  a  valuable  means  of 
improving  teaching  efficiency  in  the  consolidated  schools;  and  that  even  if 
it  only  affected  the  results  in  the  tool  subjects,  it  would  seem  to  justify  its 
present  cost  to  the  State  and  county  school  systems  of  North  Carolina. 


^  This  is  an  understatement  both  of  the  amount  of  instruction  purchased  and  the  super- 
visoi'y  load,  because  thirty-five  days  was  the  total  time  spent  in  supervising  all  the  ele- 
mentary grades,  yet  it  has  been  charged  against  only  grades  four  through  seven.  This 
was  done  because  data  "vvas  not  available  to  determine  the  exact  distribution  of  the  super- 
visor's time,  but  it  was  evident  that  she  gave  the  major  attention  to  the  grades  measured. 
Then,  too,  she  was  better  qualified   to  helji  (he  teachers  of  tlie  upper  grades. 


APPENDIX 
STATISTICAL  DATA  AlVD  TABLES  USED  W  COMPUTATION 

TABLE  I— PROGRESS  IN  READING 


Grades 


IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

Average - 


Decimal   Part   of   the   Normal   Work   of 
School  Grade  Completed  in  Five  Months. 


Supervised 


Control 


Per  cent  by  Which  Progress 
in  Supervised  Group  Ex- 
ceeded Progress  in  the  Control 
Group. 


33% 
500% 
150% 
500% 


152% 


TABLE  II— PROGRESS  IN  SPELLING 


Grades 

Decimal   Part    of   the   Normal   Work   of   a 
School  Grade  Completed  in  Five  Months. 

Per  cent  by  Which  Progress 
in     Supervised     Group      Ex- 
ceeded Progress  in  the  Control 
Group. 

Supervised 

Control 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

.5 
1.0* 

.7* 
1.5* 

.3 
.1 
.2 

.7* 

67% 
900% 
250% 
114% 

Average 

.93* 

.33 

182% 

TABLE  III— PROGRESS  IN  FOUR  FUNDAMENTALS 


Grades 

Decimal   Part   of   the   Normal   Work   of   a 
Scnool  Grade  Completed  in  Five  Montns. 

Per  cent  by  Whicn  Progress 
in      Supervised     Group     Ex- 
ceeded Progress  in  the  Control 

Supervised 

Control 

Group. 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

.7* 

.8* 

1.8* 

1.1* 

.5 
.1 
.5 

.3 

40% 
700% 
160% 
267% 

Average 

.98' 

.,37                    1                            16.";% 

TABLE  IV— PROGRESS  IN  REASONING  IN  ARITHMETIC 


Grades 

Decimal   Part    of  the   Normal  Work   of   a 
School  Grade  Completed  in  Five  Months. 

Per  cent  by  Which  Progress 
in     Supervised      Group     Ex- 

Supervised 

Control 

ceeded  Progress  in  the  Control 
Group. 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

.9' 

l.I* 

.8* 

.8* 

.7* 
.4 
■8* 
.4 

29% 

175% 

0% 

100% 

Average 

.90* 

.58 

55% 

The  asterisk  (*)  is  used  to  indicate  when  progress  is  normal  or  above. 


36 


Valxje   op   SrPERvisiox 


TABLE  V^MEASURES  OP  VARIABILITY 
(GRADES  IV— VII) 


Fall 


Subjects 


Supervised  Group; 

Reading 

Spelling 

Arith.— Comp._. 
Arith. — Reas. ._ 

Control  Group: 

Reading 

Spelling 

Arith. — Comp... 
Arith. — Reas 


Number 
Tested 


Spring 


164 

41.12 

160 

24.12 

166 

37.43 

147 

49.72 

167 

42.39 

167 

25.73 

164 

37.24 

148 

49.44 

S.  D.  Dist. 

Average 

7.48 

45.00 

7.67 

28.56 

9.94 

44.90 

12.28 

58.80 

6.95 

43.27 

7.75 

27.71 

8.31 

41.19 

11.58 

.55.36 

8.49 
8.59 
11.78 
13.42 

6.21 
8.06 
8.57 
12.18 


1.  The   standard   deviation   of   the   distribution    (S.   D.   Dist.)    is  used   to 
picture  roughly  the  concentration  of  the  scores  about  the  average. 

2.  A   distance   of   S.    D.    above    and   below  the    average    includes    approx- 
imately the  middle  two-thirds  of  the  scores. 

3.  A  range  of  six  times  the  S.  D.  Dist.  includes  the  bulk  of  the  scores. 

TABLE    VI— MEASURES    OF    RELIABILITY 
(GRADES   IV— VII) 


Subjects 


Supervised  Group: 

Reading 

SpelHng 

Aritti.  Comp 

Aritti.  Reas 

Control  Group: 

Reading 

Spelling 

Aritn.  Comp 

Arith.  Reas 


Fall 


Spring 


Number 

Tested 

Average 

S.  D.  Av. 

Average 

S.  D.  Av. 

164 

41.12 

.58 

45.00 

.58 

160 

24.21 

.60 

28.56 

.71 

166 

37.43 

.77 

44.90 

.91 

147 

49.70 

1.01 

58.80 

1.10 

167 

42.39 

.53 

43.27 

.48 

167 

25.73 

.60 

27.71 

.62 

164 

37.24 

.65 

41.19 

.67 

148 

49.44 

.95 

55.36 

1.01 

1.  The  standard  deviation  of  the  average  (S.  D.  Av.)  is  used  to  test  the 
reliability  of  the  averages  obtained  in  this  experiment. 

2.  In  interpretation  it  means  that  the  chances  are  365  to  1  that  the  true 
average  of  any  large  group,  of  which  this  group  was  a  random  sample,  is 
between  the  averages  obtained  in  this  experiment  and  plus  or  minus  3 
S.  D.  Av. 


In  Consolidated  Schools  37 

TABLE   VII— MEASURES    OF    RELIABILITY    (CONT.) 


Subjects 

Average  Improvement 

Difference 

S.  D.  Diff. 

Experimental 

Supervised 

Control 

Coefficient 

3.88 
4.35 
7.47 
9.08 

.88 
1.98 
3.95 
5.92 

3.00 
2.37 
3.52 
3.16 

.72 

.94 

1.13 

1.49 

1.44 

Spelling 

Arith.  Comp 

Arith.  Reas 

.91 

1.10 

.76 

1.  An  experimental  coefficient  of  1.0  represents  practical  certainty  that 
if  the  experiment  were  repeated  the  differences  would  favor  the  supervised 
group. 


TABLE  VIII— STATEMENT  OP  CHANCES  THAT  IN  A  SIMILAR 

EXPERIMENT  THE  DIFFERENCES  WOULD  FAVOR  THE 

SUPERVISED  GROUP 


Subjects 


Reading 

Spelling 

Arith.  Comp. 
Arith.  Reas.. 


Exper.  Coefficient 

Approx.  Chances 

1.44 
.91 

1.10 
.76 

20,000  to  1 

160  to  1 

930  to  1 

60  to  1 

38 


Value  of  Supeevision 
TABLE  IX— GRADE  SCORE  TABLES 


Age   in 
Months 

Grade 
Score 

Th.-McCall 

Reading  T 

Score 

Woody, 

Series  B 

Arith. 

Buckingham 
Reasoning 
Crude  Score 

Mor.-McCall 

Spelling 
No.  Correct 

Nat'l 

Intel. 

Scale   A 

Crude  Sc. 

108 

3.0 
3.1 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 
3.5 
3.6 
3.7 
3.8 
3.9 
4.0 
4.1 
4.2 
4  3 
4.4 
4.5 
4.6 
4.7 
4.8 

4  9 
5.0 
5.1 
5.2 

5  3 
5,4 
5.5 
5.6 
5.7 
5.8 
5.9 
6.0 
6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.4 
6.5 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8 
6.9 
7.0 
7.1 
7.2 
7.3 
7.4 
7.5 
7.6 
7.7 
7.8 
7.9 
8.0 
8.1 
8.2 
8.3 
8.4 
8.5 
8.6 
8.7 
8.8 
8.9 

16 
18 
20 
21 
23 
25 
28 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

33 

34 

37-39 

110  ___ 

32 

15 

40-42 
43-45 

112 

33 

36 

16 
17 
18 

46-47 
48-49 

34 

50-51 

113 

38 

52-53 

35 
36 

19 

54-56 

115.... 

40 

42 

44 

46 
48 

57-59 

20 

60-61 

116 

37 

62-63 

21 
22 
23 

64-65 

120 

38 
39 

66-67 

122 

68-69 
70-77 

124 

40 

24 

72 
73-74 

126 

41 

50 

25 

75-76 
77-78 

128 

42 

41 

42 

52 

26 

79 
81-82 

43 

54 

27 
28 

82-83 

131 

43 

84-85 

44 
45 

56 

86-87 

134 . 

44 

29 

88-89 

58 

90-91 

136 

46 

45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

30 

90-93 

60 

94 

138  ... 

47 

31 

95-96 

62 

97-98 

141 

48 
49 

32 

99-100 

64 

101-102 

144 

33 

103-104 

50 

51 
52 
53 

66 

105 

146  ... 

34 

106-107 

51 

68 

108 

150 

35 

109 

52 
53 
55 
54 

54 

70 

110 

153 

36 

111-112 

72 

113 

156 

37 

114-115 

56 

74 

116-117 

15(9 

55 

118-119 

76 

38 

120 

163  .  . 

56 

57 

121-122 

39 

123 

166 

78 

124-12^ 

57 

58 

40 

126-127 

170 

80 

128-129 

59 

130-131 

173.... 

58 

82 

41 

132 

60 

135 

176 

134-135 

59 

84 

136 

180 

61 

42 

137-138 

139 

185 

62 

86 

140-141 

142 

189 

60 

63 

43 

143 

1                     88 

1 

144 

« 


UNIVERSITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


00034026401 


FOR  USE  ONLY  IN 
THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  COLLECTION 


